Wow, thanks! You sure do have a lot of citrus trees, I'll take your word for it and will definitely look into getting a proper greenhouse. Right now I have my little seedling inside a makeshift one with so many airholes that I'd wager it's only useful for diffusing light.

What about repotting each seedling in its own pot? Right now I have 4 seeds evenly spread out in each small pot, at what stage can I move the ones that "make it" into their own pots?

The general public is not exclusive of wealthy people, you're using it interchangably with middle and lower income classes. Those classes, along with the wealthy, make up the general public.

If the causes for hunger and poverty were simple and known they would have already been fixed. They are not, and it is trivial to claim that the reason is the fault of the wealthy. It is easy and juvenile to think that "if a rich people just gave poor people houses and disposable income everything would be okay". Rich people are just that, people. They are people that worked hard and educated themselves to either earn or keep their wealth.

But again, now we are talking about a vastly different topic than the one we were discussing in the first place.

The best place money can go in an economy is the place it can create the most value.

E.g. if there are two businesses that provide two different services to the public, let's say tech support and a grocery store. Now let's assume that people value the grocery store much more than tech support; logically, more money will be allocated by the public to that company rather than the tech support company, as they believe that their business operations are more valuable and can make the best use of the money, earning them the larger return on their imvestment.

This is essentially what equity and debt markets do, only in a much more complicated and more efficient way. They allocate money to where the market thinks they are best used and can earn the investor the highest return. This means that businesses the market deem good get more funding while bad ones receive less, as it should be.

Basically G2A doesn't do anything else but provide people with a platform to sell gamekeys and such that can be redeemed on f.e. steam.

The problem is that a lot of the keys that are being sold are in fact stolen, having somehow been acquired without having paid the game developers.

G2A does little to stop the sale of said keys because it benefits them due to them getting a portion of every sale. It also benefits them since the stolen keys can be sold at a lower price than legitimately acquired keys since they don't carry any cost to acquire for the thiefs/hackers that stole them. This in turn brings more people to G2A due to the prices being lower than other, legitimate sites.

All of this benefits G2A so it is in their interest to allow this and only put up a public front that they are against this practice.

Edit: the current drama resulted when a user pointed out G2A's lies about their gamekey verification process they have in place and G2A promptly did an equivalent of shadoebanning him by making him still able to sell but not withdraw nor use the money from the sales.

Another comparative, ethical G2A substitute could get the customers that refuse to buy using G2A, but make no mistake they are a small minority of costumers. For every one of them there are many many more that do buy from these sites, and many who say they don't probably do in reality.

Why don't people realize that it doesn't matter how unethical it is to buy from G2A or how much you urge people not to buy. I say this as a person who avoids sites like G2A like the plague.

As long as you can without consequence to yourself buy games, stolen or not, easily and for cheaper than by other means on G2A and similar sites then they will not only exist but perform well, and they know it. People are pragmatic and rational consumers buy from the cheapest seller. That is just a fact. This PR disaster probably won't even make a dent in their revenues.